« Another Good Reason to Hate Bad Metaphors | Main | The experience(ing) of god, part one »

April 16, 2010



"Some have recently challenged me that I need a "real" or "genuine" encounter with god. My response, after the long sigh, is, "Do you think in 30 years of church that I didn't have encounters that I can't explain?" Of course I did. Inconveniently, none of them came stamped with the mark of Jesus, and people of diverse faiths have experiences, all, again inconveniently, filtered through the lens of whatever sacred text they were brought up to believe is True."

I don't disagree that historical Jesus research (like any Biblical, historical, or theological discipline) comes with its own lenses and biases. But these sentences struck me this morning as I read. Given your recent leaving of faith, how do you characterize these experiences nowadays?

(I admit that I only read one or two of the "Holden Caulfield" pieces, so maybe it's covered there.)


how can you say Someone can't be known because you don't know Him? Let's say you have an uncle charley who lives in NYC. You know he exists. I call you a fool because I haven't met him. You say you can prove it..we will go to NYC, seek Him and we will find him..aha.

Greg Horton

Umm yeah. Worst analogy ever. The difference is that we can actually find your uncle. Wow

Sent from my iPhone


So wait, Uncle Charley gets His pronoun capitalized too? This is getting creepier and creepier.

The comments to this entry are closed.